Power
Our AMD system had a different but similar power supply as our Intel system. The fan setup was also different, but the peak power consumption of the fans of both systems was very close. If you would like a completely apples-to-apples comparison (or at least as close as we can get), we'll refer to our previous performance/watt measurements which have been done with almost identical systems. Take these Intel versus AMD figures with a grain of salt, but the comparison between the different AMD CPUs is still very interesting.
To be fair, we are using somewhat early Intel samples; the current Intel CPUs will probably consume a little less power due to process maturity and other minor tweaks. Still, it is very clear that AMD's CPUs are able to save a lot more when they are not stressed. What kind of power savings may you expect when you buy a lower power Opteron?
The above table makes a few interesting points
Our AMD system had a different but similar power supply as our Intel system. The fan setup was also different, but the peak power consumption of the fans of both systems was very close. If you would like a completely apples-to-apples comparison (or at least as close as we can get), we'll refer to our previous performance/watt measurements which have been done with almost identical systems. Take these Intel versus AMD figures with a grain of salt, but the comparison between the different AMD CPUs is still very interesting.
| Power Usage | ||||||
| SPECjbb | Cinebench (Load) | Idle | PowerNow! Idle | Load vs. Idle Savings | Idle PowerNow/EIST Savings | |
| Dual Xeon 5160 3.0 | 376 | 354 | 248 | 244 | 110 | 4 |
| Dual Xeon E5345 2.33 | 374 | 331 | 248 | 244 | 87 | 4 |
| Dual Opteron 2224 SE | 380 | 409 | 310 | 159 | 250 | 151 |
| Dual Opteron 2222 | 330 | 342 | 259 | 158 | 184 | 101 |
| Dual Opteron 8218HE 2.6 GHz | 279 | 299 | 225 | 155 | 144 | 70 |
To be fair, we are using somewhat early Intel samples; the current Intel CPUs will probably consume a little less power due to process maturity and other minor tweaks. Still, it is very clear that AMD's CPUs are able to save a lot more when they are not stressed. What kind of power savings may you expect when you buy a lower power Opteron?
| Power Savings | ||||
| SPECjbb | Cinebench | Idle | PowerNow! Idle | |
| Normal 95W vs. SE 119W | 50 | 67 | 51 | 1 |
| HE 68W vs. Normal 95 | 51 | 43 | 34 | 3 |
The above table makes a few interesting points
- It is quite impressive that the AMD Opteron 2222 is now able to reach 3GHz at 95W. This means that, compared to just 2-3 months ago, you save up to 67W per server and get the same performance (2222 versus the older 2222SE).
- AMD's PowerNow! Technology is very efficient: it saves you between 150W and 250W depending on system load and configuration. 250W seems impossible, but the three fans of our Tyan TA26 had to run at much higher speeds to cool the CPUs at 3.2GHz than at 1GHz.
- The gains of Intel's EIST are very limited: the CPUs only throttle back to 2GHz.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
30 Comments
View All Comments
2ManyOptions - Monday, August 6, 2007 - link
... for most of the benchmarks Intel chips performed better than the Opterons, don't know why Intel should get scared from these, they can safely wait for Barcelona. Didn't really understand why you have out it as AMD is still in game with these in the 4S space.baby5121926 - Monday, August 6, 2007 - link
intel got scared because they dont want to see the real result from AMD + ATI.the longer intel lets AMD lives, the more dangerous intel will be.
that's why you guys can see Intel is attacking AMD really really hard at this meantime... just to kick AMD out of the game.
Justin Case - Monday, August 6, 2007 - link
What are the units in the WinRAR results table?coldpower27 - Monday, August 6, 2007 - link
Check Intel own pricing lists, and you will see that Intel has already pre-empted some of these cuts with their Xeon X5355 at $744 or Xeon E5345 at $455 and the "official" Xeon X5365 should be cout soon if not already...http://www.intel.com/intel/finance/pricelist/proce...">http://www.intel.com/intel/finance/pric...rice_lis...
TheOtherRizzo - Monday, August 6, 2007 - link
I know nothing about 4S servers. But what's the essence of this article? Surely not that NetBurst is crap? We've known that for years. Is the real story here that Intel doesn't really give a s*** about 4S, otherwise they would have moved on to the core 2 architecture long ago? Just guessing.coldpower27 - Monday, August 6, 2007 - link
Xeon 7300 Series based on the Tigerton core which is a 4 Socket Capable Kentsfield/Clovertown derivatives is arriving in Sepetember this year, so Intel does care in becoming more competitive in the 4S space, but it is just taking some time.They decided to concentrate on the high volume 2S sector is all first, since Intel has massive capacity, going for the high volume sector first makes sense.
mino - Monday, August 13, 2007 - link
Yes and no, actually to have two intel quads running on a single FSB was a serious technical problem.Therefore they had to wait for 4-FSB chipset to be able to get them out the door. Not to mention the qualification times which are a bit onger for 4S platforms that 2S.
AMD does not have these obstacles as 8xxx series are essentially 2xxx series from stability/reliability POW.
Calin - Monday, August 6, 2007 - link
The 5160 processor is Core2 unit, not a NetBurst one. Also, the 5345 is a quad core based on Core2jay401 - Monday, August 6, 2007 - link
People built 3.0GHz - 3.33GHz E4300 & E4400 systems six months ago that cost roughly $135 for the CPU. Others went for an E6300 or more recently an E6320, both again under $200.They were all relatively easy overclocks.
Why does anyone with any skill in building their own computer care about an $800+ CPU again?
Calin - Monday, August 6, 2007 - link
Why don't Ford Mustangs use a small engine, overclocked to hell? Like an inline 4 2.0l with turbo, and a high rpm instead of their huge 4+ liter engines?Why do trucks use those big engines, when they could get the same power from a smaller, gasoline, turbocharged engine?
People pay $800+ for processors that work in multiprocessor systems (your run of the mill Athlon64 or E4300 won't run). Also, they use error checking (and usually error correcting) memory in their systems - again, Athlon64 doesn't do this. They also use registered DDR in order to access more memory banks - your Athlon64 again falls short. On the E4300 side, the chipset is responsible with those things, so you could use such a processor in a server chassis - if the socket fits.